C.F. Bean LLC, Belle Chase, La., (W912EP-13-D-0023); Cavache Inc., Pompano Beach, Fla., (W912EP-13-D-0024); Matthews Marine Inc., Pass Christian, Miss., (W912EP-13-D-0025); and Inland Dredging Company LLC, Dyersburg, Tenn., (W912EP-13-D-0026); were awarded a firm-fixed-price, multiple-award-task-order contract with a maximum value of $500,000,000 for maintenance dredging services within the boundaries of the Army Corps of Engineer’s South-Atlantic Division. Specific performance location and type of appropriation will be determined with each order. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 10 bids received. The Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity.

DynPort Vaccine Company LLC, Frederick, Md., was awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a maximum value of $157,324,041 for the development of a prophylactic and medical countermeasure to prevent the effects of organophosphorus nerve agents. Work will be performed in Frederick and Mount Airy, Md.; Columbus, Ohio; Flemington, N.J.; Richmond, Va.; St. Paul, Minn.; and Canada. Fiscal 2013 research, development, testing and evaluation funds in the amount of $14,970,000 are being obligated on this award. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received. The Army Contracting Command, Natick, Mass., is the contracting activity (W911QY-13-C-0056).

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., Hurst, Texas, was awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee, foreign military sales (FMS) contract with a maximum value of $85,400,000 for engineering and technical support services. This FMS contract is in support of Iraq and Taiwan. Performance location and type of appropriation will be determined with each order. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received. The Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-13-D-0131).

FLIR Systems Inc., Wilsonville, Ore., was awarded a firm-fixed-price contract with a maximum value of $82,434,800 for the procurement of the Talon Forward Looking Infrared System. Fiscal 2013 procurement funds in the amount of $288,000 are being obligated on this award. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-13-A-0001).

Boeing, Mesa, Ariz., was awarded an $18,342,000 modification (P00005), to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (W58RGZ-12-C-0055), for the procurement of long lead material for the Apache helicopter. The cumulative total face value of this contract is $218,567,308. Fiscal 2012 procurement funds are being obligated on this award. The Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity.

Shaw Environmental Inc., New York, N.Y., was awarded a $10,000,000 modification (P00017), to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (DACW41-99-D-9001), for remediation and excavation services in support of the Maywood Superfund Site. Performance location and type of appropriation will be determined with each order. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with six bids received. The Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Mo., is the contracting activity.

4H Construction Corp., Cleveland, Miss., was awarded a firm-fixed-price contract with a maximum value of $7,309,050 for dredging services along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Specific performance location and type of appropriation will be determined with each order. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with three bids received. The Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Ark., is the contracting activity (W9127S-13-D-0004).

NAVY

Delphinus Engineering Inc., Eddystone, Pa., (N65540-13-D-0006); Q.E.D. Systems Inc., Virginia Beach, Va., (N65540-13-D-0009); George G. Sharp Inc., Virginia Beach, Va., (N65540-13-D-0007); and TECNICO Corp., Chesapeake, Va., (N65540-13-D-0008) are each being awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, with an estimated ceiling of $436,579,318 for Delphinus Engineering, an estimated ceiling of $462,189,589 for Q.E.D. Systems, an estimated ceiling of $467,339,572 for George G. Sharp, and an estimated ceiling of $504,439,878 for TECNICO Corp., for services to support habitability systems on all types of military vessels and small crafts, both aboard the vessel and at land-based facilities located at government activities. Work is expected to be completed at East Coast Navy facilities (Norfolk, Va.; Little Creek, Va.; Newport News, Va.; Mayport, Fla.; and Groton, Conn.) (50 percent), and West Coast Navy facilities (San Diego, Calif.; and Bremerton, Wash.) (50 percent), and is expected to complete by May 2018. Fiscal 2013 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy and Fiscal 2013 Operations & Maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $400,000 will be obligated at time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured through the Navy Electronic Commerce Online and the Federal Business Opportunities websites, with four offers received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Ship System Engineering Station, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.

The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., is being awarded a $27,500,000 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0022) for additional integrated logistics services in support of the low rate initial production of the P-8A Multi-Mission Maritime aircraft. Work will be performed in Seattle, Wash. (60.80 percent); Linthicum, Md. (14.89 percent); McKinney, Texas (6.44 percent); Valencia, Calif. (4.85 percent); Huntington Beach, Calif. (3.47 percent); Mesa, Ariz. (2.22 percent); Salt Lake City, Utah (1.10 percent); Johnson City, N.Y. (.95 percent); Huntington, N.Y., (.84 percent); Grand Rapids, Mich. (.57 percent); Richmond, Calif. (.50 percent) and various locations throughout the United States (3.37 percent), and is expected to be completed in June 2016. Fiscal 2012 Aircraft Procurement Navy contract funds in the amount of $27,500,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air System Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

QED Systems Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va., is being awarded a $23,836,074 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide thermal lagging for Southeast Regional Maintenance Center. Thermal lagging will be performed on the surface combatants homeported or visiting Naval Station Mayport, Fla. Work will be performed in Mayport, Fla., and is expected to complete by May 2014. Fiscal 2013 Operations & Maintenance, Navy funding in the amount of $25,000 will be obligated at time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with two offers received. Southeast Regional Maintenance Center, Mayport, Fla., is the contracting activity (N40027-13-D-0001).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Polaris Defense, Medina, Minn., has been awarded a maximum $382,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. This contract is for fire and emergency vehicles. Location of performance is Minnesota with a May 17, 2018, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2013 through fiscal 2018 Defense Working Capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM8EC-13-D-0016).

Genetech USA, South San Francisco, Calif., has been awarded a maximum $56,961,962 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This contract is for pharmaceutical products. Location of performance is California with a May 13, 2014, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2012 Warstopper funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa., (SPM2D0-13-D-0005).

General Dynamics, Williston, Vt., has been awarded an estimated maximum $34,139,561 firm-fixed-price contract. This contract is for Gatling gun barrels. Locations of performance are Vermont and Maine with a Dec. 31, 2013, performance completion date. Using military services are Navy and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal year 2013 Defense Working Capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Columbus, Ohio. (SPM7LX-13-D-0048).

Rochester Optical*, Rochester, N.Y., has been awarded a maximum $26,142,516 modification exercising option year three of a fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract. This contract is for various optical frames using the Optical Electronic Catalog Program. Location of performance is New York with a June 2, 2014, completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. Type of appropriations is fiscal 2013 Defense Working Capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa. (SPM2DE-10-D-7545).

AIR FORCE

General Electric Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, has been awarded a $35,601,642 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive -fee contract for support and sustainment of the U-2 F118-GA-101/101A engines including contractor field services support, in-plant technical services, maintenance support (multiple locations), specialized repair activities, technical data, reports, integrated logistics support, and reimbursement for contractor furnished fuel. Work will be performed at Cincinnati, Ohio, Kelly Air Force Base, Texas and Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2015. Fiscal 2012 Operations and Maintenance contract funds in the amount of $1,986,846 will be obligated at the time of award. The contracting activity is Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WIKBA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. (FA8528-13-C-0076).

GE Aviation Systems LLC, Sterling, Va., has been awarded an $8,007,010 firm-fixed-price contract for C-130 propellers. Work will be performed with Dowty Propellers in Gloucester, U.K., and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2014. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement funds are being obligated on this award. The award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. The contracting activity is Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. (FA8504-13-C-0003)

Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources Stratfor(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - May 14, 2013: An amendment to a standing water treaty between the United States and Mexico has received publicity over the past six months as an example of progress in water sharing agreements. But the amendment, called Minute 319, is simply a glimpse into ongoing mismanagement of the Colorado River on the U.S. side of the border.

Over-allocation of the river's waters 90 years ago combined with increasing populations and economic growth in the river basin have created circumstances in which conservation efforts -- no matter how organized -- could be too little to overcome the projected water deficit that the Colorado River Basin will face in the next 20 years.

Analysis

In 1922, the seven U.S. states in the Colorado River Basin established a compact to distribute the resources of the river. A border between the Upper and Lower basins was defined at Lees Ferry, Ariz. The Upper Basin (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico) was allocated 9.25 billion cubic meters a year, and the Lower Basin (Arizona, California and Nevada) was allotted 10.45 billion cubic meters. Mexico was allowed an unspecified amount, which in 1944 was defined as 1.85 billion cubic meters a year. The Upper and Lower basins -- managed as separate organizations under the supervision of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation -- divided their allocated water among the states in their jurisdictions. Numerous disputes arose, especially in the Lower Basin, regarding proper division of the water resources. But the use of (and disputes over) the Colorado River began long before these treaties.

As the United States' territory expanded to the west, the Colorado River briefly was considered a portal to the isolated frontier of the southwestern United States, since it was often cheaper to take a longer path via water to transport goods and people in the early 19th century. There was a short-lived effort to develop the Colorado River as the "Mississippi of the West." While places like Yuma, Ariz., became military and trading outposts, the geography and erratic flow of the Colorado made the river ultimately unsuitable for mass transportation. Navigating the river often required maneuvering around exposed sand banks and through shallow waters. The advent of the railroad ended the need for river transport in the region. Shortly thereafter, large and ambitious management projects, including the Hoover Dam, became the river's main purpose.

Irrigation along the river started expanding in the second half of the 19th century, and agriculture still consumes more water from the Colorado than any other sector. Large-scale manipulation of the river began in the early 20th century, and now there are more than 20 major dams along the Colorado River, along with reservoirs such as Lake Powell and Lake Mead, and large canals that bring water to areas of the Imperial and Coachella valleys in southern California for irrigation and municipal supplies. User priority on the Colorado River is determined by the first "useful purposing" of the water. For example, the irrigated agriculture in California has priority over some municipal water supplies for Phoenix, Ariz.

Inadequate Supply and Increasing Demand

When the original total allocation of the river was set in the 1920s, it was far above regional consumption. But it was also more than the river could supply in the long term. The river was divided based on an estimated annual flow of roughly 21 billion cubic meters per year. More recent studies have indicated that the 20th century, and especially the 1920s, was a time of above-normal flows. These studies indicate that the long-term average of flow is closer to 18 billion cubic meters, with yearly flows ranging anywhere from roughly 6 billion cubic meters to nearly 25 billion cubic meters. As utilization has increased, the deficit between flow and allocation has become more apparent.

Total allocations of river resources for the Upper and Lower basins and Mexico plus water lost to evaporation adds up to more than 21 billion cubic meters per year. Currently, the Upper Basin does not use the full portion of its allocation, and large reservoirs along the river can help meet the demand of the Lower Basin. Populations in the region are expected to increase; in some states, the population could double by 2030. A study released at the end of 2012 by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation predicted a possible shortage of 3 billion cubic meters by 2035.

The Colorado River provides water for irrigation of roughly 15 percent of the crops in the United States, including vegetables, fruits, cotton, alfalfa and hay. It also provides municipal water supplies for large cities, such as Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas, accounting for more than half of the water supply in many of these areas. Minute 319, signed in November 2012, gives Mexico a small amount of additional water in an attempt to restore the delta region. However, the macroeconomic impact on Mexico is minimal, since agriculture accounts for the majority of the river's use in Mexico but only about 3 percent of the gross domestic product of the Baja Norte province.

There is an imbalance of power along the international border. The United States controls the headwaters of the Colorado River and also has a greater macroeconomic interest in maintaining the supply of water from the river. This can make individual amendments of the 1944 Treaty somewhat misleading. Because of the erratic nature of the river, the treaty effectively promises more water than the river can provide each year. Cooperation in conservation efforts and in finding alternative water sources on the U.S. side of the border, not treaty amendments, will become increasingly important as regional water use increases over the coming decades.

Conservation Efforts Along the Colorado

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation oversees the whole river, but the management of each basin is separate. Additionally, within each basin, there are separate state management agencies and, within each state, separate regional management agencies. Given the number of participants, reaching agreements on the best method of conservation or the best alternative source of water is difficult. There are ongoing efforts at conservation, including lining canals to reduce seepage and programs to limit municipal water use. However, there is no basin-wide coordination. In a 2012 report, the Bureau of Reclamation compiled a list of suggested projects but stopped short of recommending a course of action.

A similar report released in 2008 listed 12 general options including desalinization, vegetation management (elimination of water-intensive or invasive plants), water reuse, reduced use by power plants and joint management through water banking (water is stored either in reservoirs or in underground aquifers to use when needed). Various sources of water imports from other river basins or even icebergs are proposed as options, as is weather modification by seeding clouds in the Upper Basin. Implementation of all these options would result in an extra 5 billion cubic meters of water a year at most, which could erase the predicted deficit. However, this amount is unlikely, as it assumes maximum output from each technique and also assumes the implementation of all proposed methods, many of which are controversial either politically or environmentally and some of which are economically unviable. Additionally, many of the methods would take years to fully implement and produce their maximum capacity. Even then, a more reasonable estimate of conservation capacity would likely be closer to 1 billion-2 billion cubic meters, which would fall short of the projected deficit in 2035.

The Potential for New Disputes

Conflict over water can arise when there are competing interests for limited resources. This is seen throughout the world with rivers that traverse borders in places like Central Asia and North Africa. For the Colorado River, the U.S.-Mexico border is likely less relevant to the competition for the river's resources than the artificial border drawn at Lees Ferry.

Aside from growing populations, increased energy production from unconventional hydrocarbon sources in the Upper Basin has the potential to increase consumption. While this amount will likely be small compared to overall allocations, it emphasizes the value of water to the Upper Basin. Real or perceived threats to the Upper Basin's surplus of water could be seen as threats to economic growth in the region. At the same time, further water shortages could limit the potential for economic growth in the Lower Basin -- a situation that would only be exacerbated by growing populations.

While necessary, conservation efforts and the search for alternative sources likely will not be able to make up for the predicted shortage. Amendments to the original treaty typically have been issued to address symptomatic problems. However, the core problem remains: More water is promised to river users than is available on average. While this problem has not come to a head yet, there may come a time when regional growth overtakes conservation efforts. It is then that renegotiation of the treaty with a more realistic view of the river's volume will become necessary. Any renegotiation will be filled with conflict, but most of that likely will be contained in the United States.

Now, because economic reforms in the 1980s, Chinese GDP is 16 percent of the world total and rising. But 200 years ago China was 35 percent of the world’s population and now is 20 percent. The U.S. has a fifth of GDP on the planet with only five percent of the population. China expects their GDP to surpass that of the U.S. within 10-20 years and then keep going. This makes many Chinese feel great and more willing to tolerate the police state bureaucrats who run the country.Yet many Chinese and foreign economists doubt that the growth will go where Chinese officials say it will. That’s because Chinese economic growth has been slowing down and that trend is likely to continue because of numerous problems with the Chinese banking system and industrial policy as well as unfavorable trends in pollution and labor force growth.Still, most Chinese are proud of their economic achievements in the last three decades and see this as the return of China to the leading position it has held for thousands of years. The 19th and most of the 20th century were a disaster for China and a recovery from that is seen by Chinese as long overdue. Foreigners, especially if they aren’t neighbors of China, have a hard time appreciating how important this is in China. But for those who live close to China, these new Chinese attitudes and aggressiveness are regarded with a sense of dread. Traditional China was an arrogant, aggressive and brutal state. The neighbors all have considerable experience with this and don’t look forward to seeing the bad old days return. China simply sees it new assertiveness as reclaiming what was lost in the many defeats it suffered during the 19th and early 20th century. It’s aggression borne of arrogance, which has been the cause of so many wars in the past.